Why we can’t just trust CSIS to do the right thing

If laughter really is the best medicine, then I have to thank Christian Leuprecht. His appearance before a Commons committee this week on Bill C-51 had me laughing so hard I won’t need to see a doctor again for years.

Prof. Leuprecht may have the academic credentials, but his gut-busting remarks demonstrate he doesn’t have a clue about what really goes on inside the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — nor the contempt the spy agency has for anyone in or outside government who tries to keep serious tabs on what it’s up to.

Still, he’s got a good seat on the media pundit merry-go-around circuit these days, where he offers gullible producers and reporters the national security equivalent of a climate change “skeptic” to “debate” the bill’s opponents. And he was treated with predictable deference by Conservative committee chair MP Daryl Kramp and that Joe McCarthy manqué, Diane Ablonczy.

Leuprecht began his stand-up routine testimony with an empty rhetorical flourish: “Security is like the air we breathe. You don’t realize that it’s gone until it’s too late.” (You could say the same about civil rights, but I digress.)

“I’d also like to point out,” he continued, “the hypocrisy of perhaps some of the (bill’s) critics and perhaps some of the ignorance of some of the professionalism of the security agencies and those who work in our national security system and the accountabilities that are in place.” For good measure, he called the bill’s critics “naïve.”

Stick and stones. Here’s the big difference between Prof. Leuprecht and me: I have never relied on CSIS-approved talking points to find out what takes place inside CSIS. Instead, I talked to a lot of the grunts inside the spy service – some of whom were so appalled by what they saw on the job that they promptly headed for the exit because they wanted no part of the rampant drinking, lying, laziness, corruption and, yes, law-breaking.

Much of what they told me landed on the front page of a national newspaper and made its way into my book about CSIS, Covert Entry.

Here’s just one of the many stories I told that put the lie to Prof. Leuprecht’s silly, pollyanish claims about the “professionalism” of Canada’s spy service and how CSIS is — get this — “the most reviewed intelligence service … in the world”:

Picture it. An ambitious CSIS officer is up for promotion. To prepare, she secretly takes home the spy service’s crown jewel: a document that lays out every detail of CSIS’s counter-terrorism and counter-espionage battle plans for the coming year.

I tried to connect the dots to find out what actually happened. I quickly discovered that ‘losing’ sensitive documents in odd places and times was pretty common at CSIS at the time.

Curiously, she leaves the prized document in a briefcase in a van while she watches a hockey game at a suburban Toronto hockey rink on a Saturday night. The document disappears — but she doesn’t report its absence until the following Tuesday, when she returns to CSIS HQ in Ottawa.

Frantic, CSIS effectively shuts down all of its counter-espionage and counter-terrorism operations in Toronto to try to find the document. It never did. I found out about it. A CSIS PR guy confirmed the story, saying the lost document constituted the “most serious security breach” in the agency’s history.

I called Paule Gauthier — a Quebec City-based lawyer and the then-chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), CSIS’s anemic review agency — for comment. News to her. Ward Elcock, the CSIS director at the time, hadn’t bothered to tell Gauthier that the spy service had lost its crown jewel. She had to hear it from a reporter.

How’s that for accountability, Mr. Leuprecht?

Here’s where the story gets even more bizarre. CSIS claimed that three “drug addicts” were responsible for the document’s loss. The document supposedly ended up in a landfill somewhere — “irretrievably lost,” the CSIS PR guy told me.

CSIS’s cover story was full of holes, to put it diplomatically. First, CSIS claimed that “great police work” had been instrumental in nabbing said junkies. (To my knowledge, not one of them was ever identified or charged.) I contacted every police force in Toronto and vicinity, asking if they had given our inept spooks a hand finding their lost spy plans. They all said no.

Even if the cops had helped CSIS out, what (I asked myself) was the likelihood of finding the thieves and the document given that the slipshod CSIS officer in question (who was married to a cop and subsequently fired) waited days before telling her bosses at CSIS that she had lost it?

I tried to connect the dots to find out what actually happened. I quickly discovered that ‘losing’ sensitive documents in odd places and times was pretty common at CSIS at the time.

Exhibit B: Another CSIS officer left a computer disk brimming with “top secret” stuff — possibly the names of informants — in a phone booth at a busy uptown Toronto intersection. A passerby found the disk. I tracked him down and he told me that he easily opened the files (they weren’t encrypted) and briefly considered selling the information to the highest bidder before giving it back to CSIS.

Later, I learned of the mother of all security breaches — a drug-addicted senior CSIS officer who dealt secrets to Mafia associates. I devoted a chapter of my book to it, but here’s the Coles notes version:

A mafia-hit-man-turned-police-informant was having a cappuccino at a mobster hang out in west-end Toronto when a middle-aged man with curly hair and a tan walked in looking for smack. He bought his heroin and retreated to a washroom to get high.

When he emerged, he informed the mafia-hit-man-turned-police-informant that he worked for CSIS and that maybe they could do business together. He instructed his new drug-dealing pal to go to his car and get a briefcase that belonged to yet another apparently absent-minded CSIS employee. Inside, the informant found a stash of CSIS documents. Together, the CSIS officer and the informant hatched a plot to blackmail the CSIS targets named in the documents.

I found the informant and his Toronto police handler and they both confirmed (on the record) the whole disturbing story — one which CSIS did its best to sweep under the rug, like all the other dirt it conceals from SIRC and the Canadian people. (By the way, the informant scored major brownie points with the Mob-busting cops when he gave them the documents, which they, in turn, handed back to CSIS in exchange for a finder’s fee.)

Remember all of this the next time Mr. Leuprecht and the other Bill C-51 apologists pop up in the media, spouting nonsense about how SIRC is up to the job and CSIS is a world-class intelligence service which does everything by the book. Do what I do: Laugh … and change the channel.

Andrew Mitrovica is a writer and journalism instructor. For much of his career, Andrew was an investigative reporter for a variety of news organizations and publications including the CBC’s fifth estate, CTV’s W5, CTV National News — where he was the network’s chief investigative producer — the Walrus magazine and the Globe and Mail, where he was a member of the newspaper’s investigative unit. During the course of his 23-year career, Andrew has won numerous national and international awards for his investigative work.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

22 comments on “Why we can’t just trust CSIS to do the right thing”

“It was interesting to hear the lies that the ‘CISS apologists’ told with such conviction, and to see the emphatic gestures with which they underlined them.”

The above observation was made by Rudolf Hoess who needed help getting people into the gas chambers. Liars he found were better than thugs. Liars who have no regrets. Our best of species liars are psychopaths. It is not their fault. Psychopaths do what psychopaths do. The fault is with organizations that lie so need our best of species liars, psychopaths. Rudolf Hoess identified them as useful like Judas goats.

Of course this is what the shadowy, slimy world of “intelligence” operates. I wouldn’t trust any one of them. There were a number appearing at the committee hearings this week, and they all want more power with little oversight. Of course, the authoritarian Cons – the “I love a man in uniform” crowd paid great deference to them to the exclusion of other witnesses. At the end of the day they will make the case of the security establishment. I don’t think anyone doubts this is a rigged game and these screwhead types are leading the parade.

Occam’s Razor is such a beautiful concept…
Every place I’ve ever worked has had its share of lazy, incompetent, selfish, weak human beings who sometimes screw up by accident and sometimes on purpose.
The ring of truth is with Andrew, the professor? Ehh, not so much.
He and all the internet typers all say the same thing: whatever any critic says, is simply not true.
Stephen is right on all topics and in all situations, Stephen in fact is a great taste sensation that’s shaking the nation (inflated a tiny bit but you get the idea).
Stephen and every cog in every wheel in his government never make mistakes, they are flawless like a Swiss cuckoo clock.
CUCKOO!!
I find it hard to shake the picture of Stephen in lederhosen and a hat with a feather in it winding his government with a big Swiss gear.
Anyways, following Brother Occam it’s a lot easier to believe Andrew’s story than the other one about the flawless, sterling, perfect government created by the Lord.

Sorry Seeyunit…
Occam was this English monk who was also a philosopher.
He developed this idea or concept that the less things you have to suppose about something, the more likely it is to be true.
Like say, you’re a judge in court and are listening to two different versions of a story.
If you have to suppose twelve things for one story to be actually true, and only one for another, it’s probably a good indication which story has the ring of truth.
I thought Andrew’s story was simpler to believe than the idea that the government never makes any mistakes in spy oversight.
I think it’s called Occam’s Razor because it shaves away all the extra stuff, like a razor would do.
I’ve heard some people explain it as, the simpler explanation is more likely to be true more often than the more involved and convoluted explanation.
There’s a whole wikipedia page on it that might do a better job explaining it than me.
Have a great week.

My family and I started warning people about Harper’s brutally corrupt secret police agency over 5 years ago and Harper’s government murdered our 2 daughters and the Kathy Liknes family and tried to murder the rest of our family over the fraudulent 30-08 warrants against us.

If anyone knows of a good lawyer so we can keep the rest of our family alive please get ahold of us. You can contact us on our website. Thanks

Highly recommend Betty Medsger’s “The Burglary” (Knoff, 2014) which documents the attitude and operation of JE Hoover’s FBI from the ’30’s through the early 70’s. It reads like fiction but is the frighting reality of a security agency run amok with a national security mantra & no oversight. Hoover’s secret FBI was uncovered in 1971 when a small group of peace activist’s broke into an regional FBI office in Media, Penn., stole every file in the place and made them pubic. It’s a remarkable story on many levels.

I public inquiry is needed to investigate the shadowy background of CSIS. Parliamentary oversight is needed
to monitor all the clandestine activities of CSIS when it comes to enhance rendition interrogation programs.

Leuprecht is a blight upon what’s left of the CBC landscape.
The man is an insufferable robotic partisan and immensely unlikable.
We’d love to know just which brilliant producer at CBC found this guy, how much he’s being paid, and what else is there to the obvious sweetheart deal he has.
For shame! He’s on record calling Canadians ignorant, stupid, immature and naïve!
We should start a petition to get rid of him and ban him from our sight.
Even the once terrific program at eight with Ian Hanomansing now features him! That hour has really gone
downhill all around.
It’s deeply sad and concerning watching what the CBC is doing as they continue to shut us all down.
In the name of what???

It cannot asked too often…who hired this guy, how much is he being paid and who on Earth thinks
that he is a voice Canadians want to hear?
The man is so terribly unlikable and a dreadful speaker…a horrid voice…he’s a robotic Harper puppet and it’s deeply disturbing to see him getting so much air time on CBC!
Please CBC and Evan, don’t give this maniac any time. We deserve better!!!

I could not be more serious here.
This man Leuprecht has to be silenced or al the very least subdued.
We are hearing him at every turn!
Who in God’s name at CBC is promoting this horrid horrid voice???
He’s an absolutely unCanadian voice. He’s a sick puppet of the Harper regime.
PLEASE! StoP!!
Like Kenney, he’s an utter menace.. a terrifying war monger.

This article is a little over the top. Mr Mitrovica dost protest too much. Its not necessary to demonize everyone in the whole organization in order to make the point that we need strong oversight. Even if only 1% of the CSIS apples are bad, we still need oversight. We also need oversight to prevent those with the best of intentions from overstepping the rules in their enthusiasm to solve cases.

Thanks for the comment. The events are true. They reflect an institutional ethos at CSIS. There is much
more evidence in my book, Covert Entry, which is available at your local library. Also, I will be returning to the theme in my next column. Please keep reading and support iPolitics. Best. Andrew

Here is substantial evidence proving that CSIS has been taken over by a mega corporation in partnership with U.S. Defense & Intelligence agencies – who are secretly implementing the terms of the SPP, and that Harper & his government are pushing Bill C-51 through to serve them…

“At CGI, we’re in the business of satisfying clients. For more than 30 years, we’ve partnered with U.S. defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies”

On October 11-13, 2012, the eighth North American Forum co-chaired by Thomas d’Aquino, former United States Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Mexican Minister of Finance, Pedro Aspe, took place in Ottawa. It was attended by close to 100 senior decision makers from all three countries. Speakers included Canadian Foreign Minister, John Baird, and Defence Minister, Peter MacKay. The group also was hosted at Rideau Hall by His Excellency David Johnston, Governor General of Canada. Thomas d’Aquino spearheaded the organization of the 2012 Forum and assumed the Canadian Co-Chair post upon the passing of his old friend and colleague The Honourable Peter Lougheed. The 2013 Forum will take place in Mexico City on October 3-5. The 2011 Forum took place in Washington, D.C. on October 6-8.”

In the fall of 2011, CGI launched their Canadian defence, public safety and intelligence unit based on similar efforts in the United States. In the spring of 2012, Harper’s government sought to eliminate CSIS’s most critical oversight mechanism, so that Canadians wouldn’t know about CGI taking over CSIS…

“Why are we eliminating the CSIS watchers?

The first thing to consider here is that CSIS has grown substantially, by 50 per cent since 2001, and today has about 3,100 employees and spends almost $350 million a year.

Yet now, to save just $1 million, the government is erasing its most critical oversight mechanism.”

CGI is a leading provider of IT services to nearly 100 federal civilian, provincial and municipal agencies in Canada, as well as the defence and public safety community. We play an active role in advancing the safety of Canadian citizens through our work with government agencies.

My family and I started warning people about Harper’s brutal secret police agency over 5 years ago and Harper’s government murdered our 2 daughters and the Kathy Liknes family and tried to murder the rest of our family over the fraudulent 30-08 warrants against us.

If anyone knows of a good lawyer so we can keep the rest of our family alive please get ahold of us. You can contact us on our website. Thanks

My wife and I finally got our second reply back from our RCMP freedom of information requests that we sent them to get our 30-08 warrant information and the investigation information that our daughters were working on before they were murdered. We were told our requests needed our signatures, birth dates, and social insurance numbers. We sent in the FOI request forms with a sample of our hand writing, multiple samples of our signatures, our birthdates, copies of our birth certificates and copies of our social insurance cards. My wifes reply from the RCMP was that they needed to know what RCMP detachment has her information so they can find it and my reply from the RCMP was that they needed to know my birthdate before they can find my information.

We are being stonewalled by the RCMP from getting our information. These are the type of games every government agency we have applied to to get our 30-08 warrant information through the freedom of information system has been playing with us for over a year now. CSIS and CSEC are not even replying back to us and SIRC should of got back to us already but they just tabled a letter in Parliament on April 2nd stating they can not properly investigate CSIS. How are we suppose to get our 30-08 warrant information and have a proper investigation done for the torture and murder of our family for the last 6 years? Who is going to help us?